Jobless claims fall unexpectedly

[southsider2k5]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=100...idHyI8&refer=us

[whitesoxfan101]

Who cares, we're still all doomed.

[NorthSideSox72]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=100...idHyI8&refer=us

 

Can we be a little more forthright in the thread title? They didn't fall - they rose. They just rose less than expected.

[southsider2k5]

Can we be a little more forthright in the thread title?  They didn't fall - they rose.  They just rose less than expected.

 

But that qualifies as massive cuts in the budget...

[NorthSideSox72]

But that qualifies as massive cuts in the budget... 

 

 

What does budget have to do with anything? Did I miss something?

[mreye]

But that qualifies as massive cuts in the budget... 

Say it loud, brother!

 

 

[G&T]

``If claims remain at their current level, we could expect the unemployment rate to be down to 4 percent or so by mid- summer,'' said Ian Shepherdson, chief U.S. economist at High Frequency Economics, in Valhalla, New York, in a report to clients. ``In other words, claims at their current level imply that the labor market will, over the course of the next six months or so, become almost as tight as at the peak of the nineties boom.''

 

Unfortunately my understanding of economics is essentially nill. My question is what sectors are these jobs in? Are these all manufacturing or government or what? It's great that people have jobs but are incomes generally higher or lower?

[NorthSideSox72]

Unfortunately my understanding of economics is essentially nill. My question is what sectors are these jobs in? Are these all manufacturing or government or what? It's great that people have jobs but are incomes generally higher or lower?

 

There is some debate on those questions, particularly the last one. Different economists have different views. Many of them say the unemployment number is pretty irrelevant, and doesn't measure much accurately. I happen to agree with that (though I am certainly no expert, I just agree with their points). With jobs being created as they are, I'd suggest that you will see the unemployment number actually go up again soon, as more people enter the worforce (remember, the unemployment number only includes those "actively seeking" employment). Other economics folks agree with this, some don't.

[NorthSideSox72]

Say it loud, brother!

     

 

Again, WTF are you two talking about? What budget cuts, and what does that have to do with my statement?

[Balta1701]

Unfortunately my understanding of economics is essentially nill. My question is what sectors are these jobs in? Are these all manufacturing or government or what? It's great that people have jobs but are incomes generally higher or lower?

Both real wages and the median wage have been falling for several years now, the median wage (50% of Americans earn less) has been falling since the last year or two of the Clinton Administration. Real wages...wages after inflation is removed, have been stagnant or declining for at least the last year.

 

According to some estimates, more than 100% of the new jobs created since 2001 have been attributable to the dramatic increases in government spending.

[G&T]

Interesting stuff, thanks guys.

[Rex Kickass]

What I don't honestly understand is that it seems the number of jobs in my local paper doesn't grow day to day. Is the labor market really this tight? Or is it because a large number of people have left the workforce?

 

I'm honestly confused. There are so many statistics regarding employment and some seem to be a direct contradiction of the others.

[Balta1701]

What I don't honestly understand is that it seems the number of jobs in my local paper doesn't grow day to day. Is the labor market really this tight? Or is it because a large number of people have left the workforce?

 

I'm honestly confused. There are so many statistics regarding employment and some seem to be a direct contradiction of the others.

In January of 2001, the number of people listed as "Not in the labor force" in the BLS job numbers was 71,060,000.

 

In January of 2006, that same number was 78,463,000. That's nearly 7.5 million people who are not counted as "Unemployed" by the U.S. government but who do not have jobs.

[southsider2k5]

Unfortunately my understanding of economics is essentially nill. My question is what sectors are these jobs in? Are these all manufacturing or government or what? It's great that people have jobs but are incomes generally higher or lower?

 

Both wages and employment accross all sectors has been increasing. Wages have been pretty much pegged to inflation so it has been a zero sum gain lately, but the most jobs growth has been coming from the obvious service and health care sectors, while even manufacturing has been adding to the payrolls for the better part of a year now.

[southsider2k5]

Again, WTF are you two talking about?  What budget cuts, and what does that have to do with my statement?

 

Cutting the rate of increase in the budget is being called massive budgetary cuts in the press, when in fact the real $ amount of the budgets for all of the sectors is going up, just not by as much.

 

So I figured if the rate of increase in unemployment filings has been cut, that must mean that there has massive increases in hiring...

 

yeah for wordplay!

[southsider2k5]

In January of 2001, the number of people listed as "Not in the labor force" in the BLS job numbers was  71,060,000.

 

In January of 2006, that same number was 78,463,000.  That's nearly 7.5 million people who are not counted as "Unemployed" by the U.S. government but who do not have jobs.

 

What exactly does that number include????

[NorthSideSox72]

Cutting the rate of increase in the budget is being called massive budgetary cuts in the press, when in fact the real $ amount of the budgets for all of the sectors is going up, just not by as much.

 

So I figured if the rate of increase in unemployment filings has been cut, that must mean that there has massive increases in hiring...

 

yeah for wordplay!

 

OK, now I see what you were getting at.

 

And I actually agree, I think there is definitely good new jobs growth. But I still maintain the unemployment number is highly misleading, as it is really only a leading indicator at best of real employment levels. See Balta's threads - I pretty much agree with him on that subject.

[Balta1701]

What exactly does that number include????

Every month when the BLS puts out its labor numbers, it includes 1 item in the table for "Not in the labor force", including all sorts of things, like long-term unemployed, people who have stopped looking for work, people who have gone to school, people placed on disability, people who have gone in for other job training, etc. There's lots of ways to fall out.

 

Here's their raw numbers. I don't care as much about the overall number...whether it's 70 million or 10 million isn't the important part...the important part is the fact that in the last 10 years, as the "Unemployment percentage" numbers have dropped...a very significant portion of that drop is due to the dramatic increase in that number.

[southsider2k5]

Every month when the BLS puts out its labor numbers, it includes 1 item in the table for "Not in the labor force", including all sorts of things, like long-term unemployed, people who have stopped looking for work, people who have gone to school, people placed on disability, people who have gone in for other job training, etc.  There's lots of ways to fall out.

 

Here's their raw numbers.  I don't care as much about the overall number...whether it's 70 million or 10 million isn't the important part...the important part is the fact that in the last 10 years, as the "Unemployment percentage" numbers have dropped...a very significant portion of that drop is due to the dramatic increase in that number.

 

Not sure what you were linking, but I got this message

 

Sorry, survey does not exist. If you need to contact someone about the program or its data, please send a message to the data questions e-mail address below or call the phone number below.

[Balta1701]

Not sure what you were linking, but I got this message

 

Sorry, survey does not exist.  If you need to contact someone about the program or its data, please send a message to the data questions e-mail address below or call the phone number below.

Ok, i must not be able to link directly to that data table...Try here, check the top left box, and retrieve data.

[jackie hayes]

Every month when the BLS puts out its labor numbers, it includes 1 item in the table for "Not in the labor force", including all sorts of things, like long-term unemployed, people who have stopped looking for work, people who have gone to school, people placed on disability, people who have gone in for other job training, etc.  There's lots of ways to fall out.

 

Here's their raw numbers.  I don't care as much about the overall number...whether it's 70 million or 10 million isn't the important part...the important part is the fact that in the last 10 years, as the "Unemployment percentage" numbers have dropped...a very significant portion of that drop is due to the dramatic increase in that number.

Not true. Long term unemployed are considered unemployed, as long as they are still looking for work.

 

If you include discouraged workers and/or marginally attached workers, the rate of unemployment still dropped a little more than 1% from its highs. It doesn't seem to make that much of a difference.

[YASNY]

Common sense will tell you that the number not in the labor force will continue to rise, and probably at a faster rate as the baby boomers grow older, have more health problems and reach retirement age.

 

As for the unemployement percentage being irrelevent, if it was 9% would that still be considered irrelevent?

[NorthSideSox72]

Common sense will tell you that the number not in the labor force will continue to rise, and probably at a faster rate as the baby boomers grow older, have more health problems and reach retirement age.

 

As for the unemployement percentage being irrelevent, if it was 9% would that still be considered irrelevent?

 

It's relevant - its a telling measure. But it only tells a small part of the story. You have to take in the whole picture, and unemployment (the published number) is only a fraction of it.

 

For me, the number shows trends. When used that way, it can be a leading indicator. I think there is strong evidence that if an economy is growing in jobs at a healthy rate, you get an arc effect: unemployment starts by dipping as people get jobs, goes back up again as more people return to the workforce because of the new jobs, and then (if the economy can sustain the growth), if goes down a second time, and its more accurate the second time around. I think we are about to see the spike. If the economy can stay strong, we'll return to a downtrend in that number later in the year or next year.

 

I can't find links for the books (those authors never want to publish to the net), but I've read this perspective in more than one semi-recently published text.

[Balta1701]

Common sense will tell you that the number not in the labor force will continue to rise, and probably at a faster rate as the baby boomers grow older, have more health problems and reach retirement age.

 

As for the unemployement percentage being irrelevent, if it was 9% would that still be considered irrelevent?

It would depend on how it got to 9%. If it got there because it was at 15% but then the labor market had "Shrunk" due to the survey excluding people, it'd be pretty darn irrelevant.

 

Here's the thing to put this in perspective. Due to population growth, immigration, etc., this nation adds roughly 100,000-150,000 people to its work force every month. About a million or two a year depending on the year. Yet the size of the work force has declined dramatically over the past 10 years. These 2 metrics simply do not match.

[NorthSideSox72]

It would depend on how it got to 9%.  If it got there because it was at 15% but then the labor market had "Shrunk" due to the survey excluding people, it'd be pretty darn irrelevant.

 

Here's the thing to put this in perspective.  Due to population growth, immigration, etc., this nation adds roughly 100,000-150,000 people to its work force every month.  About a million or two a year depending on the year.  Yet the size of the work force has declined dramatically over the past 10 years.  These 2 metrics simply do not match.

 

I do have a question - I don't see a classification in the unemployment numbers released specifically for retirees. Is that segregated out? I'd be curious to see that number, and see if that has materially increased over the years.